The rapid escalation of the Anna Hazare campaign, aided by embracing the media as allies, compromised its political character in numerous ways. Political participation as a critique of the status quo has to exist both inside and outside the media spectacle. Visibility can be experienced as fulfilling, but when the image becomes the destination of politics, it is a trap.

Why has the Anna Hazare movement against corruption steered clear of people’s movements, and why have the latter behaved likewise towards the Hazare agitation? Manoranjan Mohanty (“People’s Movements and the Anna Upsurge”, EPW, 17 September 2011) is despondent about this gap between the two. The reasons are obvious and are to be found in the very observations Mohanty makes.

Why is it that the Anna Hazare-led movement against corruption does not seek to have the Lokpal cover NGOs, corporate houses and the corporate media?

Both civil society and government have travelled a long way on the Lokpal Bill. The official Bill is a much improved version of earlier efforts. Most of the key elements for a strong and effective law are in place. What remain are differences on whether the Lokpal should cover all civil servants, at the centre and the states, and whether the office should also redress public grievances. A huge Lokpal will lose focus and itself become an oppressor; a more nuanced approach is thus called for. Civil society groups need to bridge their differences and carry the Bill through its last stage.